How to Use this Blog

NEW NEW NEW

OUR ADDRESS: http://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/

Howdy! We've amassed tons of information and important history on this blog since 2010. If you have a keyword, use the search box below. Also check out the reference section above. If you have a question or need help searching, use the contact form at the bottom of the blog.

ALSO, if you buy any of the books at the links provided, the editor will earn a small amount of money or commission. (we thank you) (that is our disclaimer statement)

This is a blog. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, not a sponsored publication... The ideas, news and thoughts posted are sourced… or written by the editor or contributors.

2018: 3/4 million+ Visitors/Readers! This blog was ranked #49 in top 100 blogs about adoption. Let's make it #1...

Search This Blog

Monday, August 18, 2014

GOOD NEWS: Judge accepts feds' comments on Indian Child Welfare case

RAPID CITY - SOUTH DAKOTA -- In what is being called a
rare move, the Department of Justice last week threw its support behind
two South Dakota tribes and two Native American mothers that have
accused state officials of violating the Indian Child Welfare Act by
taking custody of their children for 60 days after only a brief hearing.

Chief
United States District Judge Jeffrey Viken on Friday granted the
Department of Justice's motion to comment as a friend of the court in
the lawsuit filed in 2013. In doing so, Viken acknowledged the
department's amicus brief outlining its interpretation of the rights
Native American parents have under the Indian Child Welfare Act when
their children are removed from their homes.

The South Dakota
Department of Social Services often is called to take custody of
children when law-enforcement officers handle a domestic situation,
during a criminal investigation or when a warrant is served. Under state
law, a custody hearing is required within 48 hours of a child's removal
from a home. Such hearings are referred to as "48-hour hearings."

Viken's
decision is good news, according to Rapid City attorney Dana Hanna,
who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, represents the
Oglala Sioux and Rosebud Sioux tribes and mothers Madonna Pappen and
Lisa Young in the 2013 lawsuit. The suit was filed on behalf of all
Native American parents whose children were taken through the actions of
the Department of Social Services, Pennington County State's Attorney's
Office and the Seventh Circuit Court.

"The Indian plaintiffs in
this case and their attorneys are delighted that the Department of
Justice has supported virtually all our legal arguments that we have
raised in our lawsuit against the state officials," Hanna said in an
interview on Friday.

"We are confident that the brief filed by the
Department of Justice will be very helpful to the district court in
arriving at a just decision in this case."

The DOJ's participation in the case is a "very rare and unprecedented event," Hanna said.

The action shows the importance of the case, according to ACLU attorney Stephen Pevar.
"This
may be the first time since ICWA was passed in 1978 that DOJ entered
into an ICWA case at the district court level," Pevar said in a news
release Friday.

The National Indian Child Welfare Association,
headquartered in Portland, Ore., also welcomes the DOJ's involvement in
the South Dakota case.

"It is our hope that this is just the first
of many actions the United States will take to better ensure Native
children and families are treated fairly under the law and that
non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act is no longer
tolerated," Executive Director Terry Cross said Thursday in a statement.
"As always, NICWA stands in support of South Dakota's Indian families,
tribes and children. With today's development, we are one step closer to
achieving justice for them."
South Dakota Attorney General Marty
Jackley's office represents the judiciary in this case. On Friday, his
office said that he cannot comment on ongoing litigation.

The
lawsuit accuses Seventh Circuit Court judges of conducting perfunctory
48-hour hearings and placing children in foster care when the Department
of Social Services takes temporary custody of Native American children.
The lawsuit criticizes the speed of the hearings and the treatment
given parents during the hearings.

In the "Conclusion" section of
its brief, the Department of Justice wrote: "ICWA imposes a specific
obligation on state officials, including state courts and departments of
social services, to actively investigate and oversee emergency removals
of Indian children to 'insure' that the removal ends as soon as
possible, and that Indian children are 'expeditiously' returned to their
parents or their tribe, or that the state commences a child custody
proceeding subject to all of ICWA's protections." That obligation, the
brief continues, "applies to initial hearings such as the 48-hour
hearings at issue here."
In July, the attorneys filed motions
asking the federal court to hold as a matter of law that certain
practices used in Pennington County's initial 48-hour custody hearings
involving Native American families violate federal law.

Many such hearings last less than two minutes, according to Hanna.

A
review of hearing transcripts filed in the case shows parents are given
no meaningful opportunity to speak or questions the judges, Hanna
said.

"They are expressly told by the judges that they are not
allowed to give testimony in the 48-hour hearing," Hanna said in an
email Friday.

The federal brief cites the plaintiffs' assertion
that "the 48-hour hearings are, almost without exception, cursory
affairs, and that no testimony or evidence is permitted." The brief
added that under federal law, "(S)tate officials must conduct an inquiry
into whether the emergency removal is still necessary to prevent
imminent harm to the child, and must accept and/or present evidence on
this issue, either at the 48-hour hearing or at another hearing soon
thereafter."

Such a hearing, the federal brief said, "should
include an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence on the parents'
behalf."

At about 99 percent of the hearings, the court grants the state's petition for temporary custody, Hanna said.

Although,
Congress recognized a need for states to be able to take emergency
action to protect Native American children, it also imposes strict
limitations on that emergency authority, according to the brief.

An
emergency removal or placement should be terminated as soon as possible
by either returning children to a parent, custodian or tribe or
initiate a child custody proceeding within ICWA guidelines, according to
the Department of Justice.

The brief was submitted by U.S.
Attorney Brendan Johnson, Acting Assistant Attorney Generals Molly J.
Moran, Sam Hirsch and other U.S. Department of Justice attorneys.

With
this lawsuit, the Native American tribes and parents are trying to tell
state officials that temporary custody hearings do not meet
constitutional standards and violate ICWA, Hanna said.
"And now," Hanna said, "the Department of Justice has said that too."

60s Scoop Settlement

Dawnland 2018

where were you adopted?

Every. Day.

adoptees take back adoption narrative and reject propaganda

#WeShallContinue

To Veronica Brown

Veronica, we adult adoptees are thinking of you today and every day. We will be here when you need us. Your journey in the adopted life has begun, nothing can revoke that now, the damage cannot be undone. Be courageous, you have what no adoptee before you has had; a strong group of adult adoptees who know your story, who are behind you and will always be so.

Join!

National Indigenous Survivors of Child Welfare Network (NISCWN)

Membership Application Form

The Network is open to all Indigenous and Foster Care Survivors any time.

Read this SERIES

our new book trailer

ADOPTION TRUTH

As the single largest unregulated industry in the United States, adoption is viewed as a benevolent action that results in the formation of “forever families.” The truth is that it is a very lucrative business with a known sales pitch. With profits last estimated at over $1.44 billion dollars a year, mothers who consider adoption for their babies need to be very aware that all of this promotion clouds the facts and only though independent research can they get an accurate account of what life might be like for both them and their child after signing the adoption paperwork.

TWO WORLDS Book 1 (second edition)

v

Two Worlds anthology (Vol. 1)

“…sometimes shocking, often an emotional read…this book is for individuals interested in the culture and history of the Native American Indian, but also on the reading lists of universities offering ethnic/culture/Native studies.”

“Well-researched and obviously a subject close to the heart of the authors/compilers, I found the extent of what can only be described as ‘child-snatching’ from the Native Americans quite staggering. It’s not something I was aware of before…”

“The individual pieces are open and honest and give a good insight into the turmoil of dislocation from family and tribe… I think it does have value and a story to tell. I was affected by the stories I read, and amazed by the facts presented…. because it is saying something new, interesting and often astonishing.”

Did you know?

Good words

I agree with you on the caring of “orphans” – true orphans, not “paper orphans” as Kathryn Joyce describes in her book, The Child Catchers. The most important thing to remember, however, is that the orphan’s original identity and family connection and heritage must remain intact and available to him or her forever. This business of adoption – and I do mean the multi-billion-dollar, unregulated business of adoption – of wiping out the child’s original identity, falsifying birth records with the adopters’ names, altering facts such as place of birth, severing familial kinship, must stop … Immediately. And the outrageous injustices foisted upon adoptees and their families for the past 100 years must be addressed and righted. We are faced today with six to seven million people who were basically legally kidnapped, sold to the highest bidder, their identities falsified, and placed in a lifelong, imposed witness protection program for which there is no legal recourse. Then told by church officials, agency and government functionaries that they have no right to know who they are, to do genealogy or learn about important family medical history, or know the identity of or associate with blood relatives. This is how the Judeo-Christian society has interpreted “caring for orphans”, for it’s own selfish interests and greed. Starting with Georgia Tann, the woman charged with kidnapping and selling 5,000 children, most of whom were given to the rich and powerful who then colluded with her to “seal” adoptions and cover their nefarious activities (see, for example, Gov. Herbert Lehman, NY, 1935).

We are #49 in the world?

Disclosure Statement

“We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”If you buy our books from Amazon, we receive a small payment.